Sunday, June 05, 2011

I'm not Hitchens, and so I'm often not as articulate when I speak as when I write. But here, after some thought, is what I find annoying about Charlie the Atheist Homophobe's arguments.

His obsession with words and their proper definitions would be a lot more persuasive if he weren't being so self-serving and hypocritical about how he argues his position. When he called Tracie and me two weeks ago, the burden of his argument was that the word homophobia has a colloquial meaning that has changed and evolved from its dictionary definition, so as to incorporate such things as "disgust" rather than strictly "irrational fear" (the meaning of "phobia" in a nutshell). Charlie was supportive of this evolution of homophobia's meaning, of course.

But he is not similarly supportive of a change and evolution of the definition of marriage. While homophobia gets to expand its meaning to include a variety of emotional states, marriage does not get to expand its meaning to include a variety of relationship commitments, including same-sex couples (even though the almighty dictionary says it can). And Charlie's whole justification for opposing any expansion of marriage's definition is an appeal to tradition and consensus, the very things he thinks should be ignored in the case of homophobia.

It's a pure double standard, of the sort that people who are smart enough to know better often hold, so as to convince themselves that an intellectually and morally offensive point of view is in fact intellectually and morally justified. But as Russell said, if the guy isn't actually out to impinge on anyone's rights, then his word games are just so much noise.

I personally still don't get why people so desperately latch onto these kinds of justifications. I'd find it ridiculously presumptuous of me to instruct a couple of strangers, who happened to be consenting adults, on what term they were allowed to apply to their personal relationship commitment, because "traditional" terms made me uncomfortable. If gay people want to be married and call it "marriage," how does that harm me? How does it negatively impact my life in any degree whatsoever? What's it got to do with me anyway? Nothing, that's what.

And yet Charlie is so desperate to justify his folly that he'll call my position irrational. Whatever. Seems to me the dude's on no more sensible, let alone honest, ground than Tony Perkins.

597 comments:

Maybe if you were just a hair quicker on the mute trigger... just to give yourself the space to present your view without the person on the phone shouting over you? I think you guys handled this fairly well, but I think if you'd cut the guy off sooner you might have made your case more clearly and with less difficulty.

"While homophobia gets to expand its meaning to include a variety of emotional states, marriage does not get to expand its meaning to include a variety of relationship commitments, including same-sex couples"

That's a FAULTY ANALOGY FALLACY

Unlike the word marriage, the term "homophobia" was a misnomer and full of DECEIT every since it was invented. Even though the suffix is "phobia", It was NEVER a phobia. It was NEVER about fear of gays. The person who invented the word didn't even conduct a study to see if the people who he labeled "homophobes" were even afraid of gays in the first place. They allowed this MISNOMER in the dictionary when it was never supposed to be in the dictionary. The suffix "phobia" of the word it outright DECEIT and TRICKERY. The term homophobia has been and still is deceitful by default. So the word never really "evolved" because it was never what it was suppose to mean in the first place.

On the other hand,

Unlike homophobia, the term marriage is NOT a misomer.. Unlike homophobia, the term marriage was NEVER been deceitful by default. Unlike homophobia, the definition of marriage has always been CLEAR.

The problem I have with the gay movement is since they refuse to stop using the term incorrectly, the next best thing is to apply pressure on them to at least acknowledge what studies have discovered about the people who they label "homophobes". The truth is, it's all about disgust and disgust is a disease avoidance behavior.

The person who invented the word didn't even conduct a study to see if the people who he labeled "homophobes" were even afraid of gays in the first place.

Citation needed.

In any event, as I understand the origins of the term in clinical psych, it had to do not so much with a fear of gays as a fear of latent homosexual urges on the part of the homophobe himself, and this fear led to an aversion to homosexuals that bordered on pathology.

This is not, of course, to say that all or even a significant portion of anti-gay people have such a fear. Many almost certainly do not. In those cases, the term "homophobia" might apply less well than simply to say the person is prejudiced. But in the end it's all the same. I don't see that prejudice is any more rationally justified by disgust than by fear, particularly when it's a "disease avoidance behavior" that's neither about a disease, nor about something that affects your life in any way whatsoever.

Anyway, definitions do change, and that of marriage is expanding to include same-sex couples, as the dictionary.com link reveals. You may not like that fact, but really, that's your problem. Your faux-intellectual justifications for what is simple bigotry still fail to convince.

Homophobia is not a misnomer unless you willfully disregard its common meaning. It still has its medical meaning, but the far more common meaning means something different.

This is very similar to a related issue, where 'theory' has both a common and scientific meaning, and creationists so love to purposefully use the wrong definition based on the context.

In the case of 'homophobia', using the medical definition in a common context is deceitful, and using the common one in a medical context is confusing. That doesn't mean either definition is inherently wrong or deceitful, just that you're being far too anal about a specific definition that you feel should be the only one.

In the case of the use of 'marriage', besides your bizarre preference for a specific definition once again, why should anyone care?

It's standard religious practice to make assertions that aren't true. It ranges from calling atheism a religion, to insisting that scientific evidence points to a 6,000 year old earth, yet includes varying things such as, "the evidence is 'inconclusive,'" or my favorite old chestnut, "science is flawed because it's created by man." We won't mention that anything we know about the bible would be flawed by that logic, that would hurt their brain. The arrogance and willingness to deceive and lie seen in theists is quite astounding, even to the point that theists have *told me* what I believe, even after being corrected. What the homophobe was doing is classic religious rationalization; protecting and assaulting the same standards in a double-think mindset. It's similar to insisting that evidence for god exists, and having to resort to it being a matter of faith, which can often then "red herring" into the further self-deluded rationale, "you'll understand *when* you have faith." In short, Charlie was a common, lowly mind.

I haven't listened to the episode yet, but does Charlie realize that the definition of "marriage" has changed wildly over the course of human history? For most of the time in the west, it's meant "a financial transaction between families where a young woman and some assorted property are sold to a (usually much older) man." In other cultures, it's meant "an arrangement where any number of women are held in sexual servitude by a single man." The idea of "one man and one woman sharing their lives together of their own volition because they're in love" is a comparatively new innovation. And before that, it was "one man and one woman of the same race and religion sharing their lives together of their own volition because they're in love."

And all that, of course, ignores marriages of convenience, political marriages, or shotgun weddings. The "one man, one woman, monogamous and in love for life" marriage model makes up a minority of marriages.

Not that any of it matters. I don't see what harm is done to Charlie by a gay couple in Massachusetts falling in love, deciding to be monogamous, and applying for the same rights everyone else has to visit each other in the hospital and claim each other on their taxes and so forth.

Missed this: at least acknowledge what studies have discovered about the people who they label "homophobes". The truth is, it's all about disgust and disgust is a disease avoidance behavior.

Citation please. Quick question, Chuck: why don't we feel disgust toward crowds of people? Lots more diseases in crowds than in individual gay people. For that matter, why isn't all sex disgusting? Exactly what "diseases" are communicated by gays and not straights? And before you say HIV, note two things: that it's a recent disease (and so wouldn't explain anti-gay bigotry stretching back into antiquity) and that it crossed over due to butchering bushmeat in Africa. If disgust is a disease-avoidance adaptation, then why weren't the industrializing Africans at the turn of the century adapted to feel disgust toward primates with SIV?

And what about cultures who don't have that disgust? There are lots of heteroflexible societies in history (ancient Greece, for instance) who apparently lacked that disgust. Can you demonstrate that there's a biological component (necessary if it's an evolutionary adaptation) and that it's not just cultural? I'd be very interested in seeing that study.

If Charlie's goal has been to distract us from atheism, he has succeeded. Although his two calls have had a certain rowdy entertainment value, I propose he be limited to the topics of theism & atheism in future shows.

The burden of proof is on you, Mr. atheist. You should know that. Cite the study that shows homophobia IS rooted in fear. Just like I thought, many pro gay atheists become like Christians when discussing gay issues.

"In any event, as I understand the origins of the term in clinical psych, it had to do not so much with a fear of gays as a fear of latent homosexual urges on the part of the homophobe himself, and this fear led to an aversion to homosexuals that bordered on pathology"

Where's the study to support this??? There is none and the FATALLY FLAWED study from the Univ. Of Georgia doesn't count because

1. It was too small ( no more than 70 subjects)2. It wasn't repeated or duplicated even once3. It didn't cover various people from varous cultures and backgrounds4. it was possibly rigged.

"This is not, of course, to say that all or even a significant portion of anti-gay people have such a fear. Many almost certainly do not"

Then that makes the term homophobia a misnomer and DECEITFUL. Why would anyone invent a word with the suffix phobia added to it KNOWING the word is not really a phobia??? That's like someone inventing the word homo-schizo knowing the people who will be labeled that aren't really schizophrenic.

"I don't see that prejudice is any more rationally justified by disgust than by fear, particularly when it's a "disease avoidance behavior" that's neither about a disease, nor about something that affects your life in any way whatsoever"

Feces doesn't affect my life in anyway but I have the right to express disgust of it and expressing disgust of gay men is NOT "bigotry" or "irrational"...I don't think you want to claim that every single human is a "bigot" because everyone is disgusted by something. Disgust is not "bigotry". Is that the best you can do? Many pro gays including atheist pro gays are clearly intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their views regarding gay issues and that's TRUE bigotry. Denying someone a Miss America title because of a disagreement is PURE bigotry.

You mean the meaning that doesn't even apply to 99% of the people they label "homophobes"?

The "common" meaning is a LIE to begin with. It's like going around calling a bunch of skinny people "fat"...

No, it's more like calling people "black" or "white" when their skin colors are more variations on brown and peach. Or, as someone mentioned in the previous episode's thread, calling an anti-Judaism person an "anti-Semite," which literally means "against people who belong to Semitic cultures" and, literally, encompasses many Arabs and excludes many Jews.

The meanings of words are not always the same as the literal translation of their prefixes and suffixes. "Homophobia" literally means "an irrational fear of the same," which is basically nonsensical. But its definition is different from its literal meaning, and usage defines it as "fear or hatred of homosexuals."

It's fair to say that pro gay atheists support DECEIT in which makes them a bunch of hypocrites.

No, actually, it doesn't. Not unless those pro-gay atheists are also necessarily committed to opposing deceit. See, "hypocrisy" means acting in ways that are specifically contrary to what you claim to believe or support.

I don't conform to religion so what makes you think I will conform to pro gays???

"but does Charlie realize that the definition of "marriage" has changed wildly over the course of human history?"

if marriage changes and there's nothing wrong with that, the few states that legalized gay marriage can change back to husband and wife. So change can be good.

It's all subjective and no one is right or wrong regarding gay marriage. It just depends on what each society decides to do.

"why don't we feel disgust toward crowds of people? Lots more diseases in crowds than in individual gay people. For that matter, why isn't all sex disgusting? Exactly what "diseases" are communicated by gays and not straights?"

You're like a Christian asking a bunch of questions based on a lack of rational thought.

What study shows 2o% of people who hang out in large crowds every two weeks are at risk of contracting a disease?

Std's among gays are so serious, men who have sex with men aren't even allowed to donate blood or plasma. Now that's what I called justified discrimination due to a serious health risk.

STudy shows 20% of gay men in large cities have hiv/aids.

Gay men are a TRUE disease threat so our evolutionary disgust is justified.

Harrod: If Charlie's goal has been to distract us from atheism, he has succeeded. Although his two calls have had a certain rowdy entertainment value, I propose he be limited to the topics of theism & atheism in future shows.

Great. And after they've discussed how there's no God, what will they do with the other 58 minutes?

Listen to the intro again, Harrod, specifically about how the ACA is an organization dedicated to positive atheism and the separation of church and state. That latter bit is the significant part here, since arguments against gay rights and marriage equality, 9 times out of 10, are derived from religious positions. As Rebecca Watson recently pointed out, most of the religious right's current attacks on church/state separation aren't just creationism in schools and Ten Commandments monuments, but attacks on women's rights, reproductive health, and gay rights.

Which puts those issues squarely within the purview of the ACA's mission statement. Not that I think they'd need to justify those conversations.

It seems that you're really placing too much weight on language, and not what's behind the language.

Look, as Martin pointed out, there might actually be people who are afraid of homosexuality for a number of reasons. Those people might be homophobes.

There might also be people who are disgusted at homosexuality. They would be prejudiced.

And you know what? Some people might mistakenly call themselves a homophobe when really they're just prejudiced. *clears throat in an accusing manner*

But your whole premise relies on some study showed that all homophobia is based on disgust instead of fear? Or are you sure that this study wasn't just showing that people who call themselves homophobes actually aren't? I want a citation of this study that shows that homophobia is actually disgust and not fear. As Martin said, there have been studies that have shown that homophobia is more about the homophobe than it is the object of the homophobia. I really want a citation.

And even if you do have a citation, I'm already skeptical of the study. I want to know how they conducted the study, what were the objectives, all of the variables present, etc. Moreover, I want to know what the results really were, because I sincerely believe you may have misinterpreted the results.

> Std's among gays are so serious, men who have sex with men aren't even allowed to donate blood or plasma.

Got a source for that? The eligibility requirements for blood donation i could find make no mention of sexual orientation at all. Examples: http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requirementshttp://www.cbccts.org/donating/index.htmhttp://www.donatingplasma.org/whydonate/eligiblity.aspx

"No, it's more like calling people "black" or "white" when their skin colors are more variations on brown and peach"

This is a HUGE faulty analogy fallacy. Accusing someone of suffering from a "phobia" when they're not really suffering from a "phobia" is NOTHING LIKE calling someone "black" because the word "black" has more than one meaning while the word "phobia' is SPECIFICALLY about an irrational fear.

Why won't you pro gay, deceitful, irrational atheists be truthful about it??? You like using the term homophobe because you believe it's a good way to silence or shame people who speak out against gays into silence or politial submission. The word homophobia is nothing but a verbal political weapon...

The meanings of words are not always the same as the literal translation of their prefixes and suffixes. "Homophobia" literally means "an irrational fear of the same," which is basically nonsensical. But its definition is different from its literal meaning, and usage defines it as "fear or hatred of homosexuals."

It's fair to say that pro gay atheists support DECEIT in which makes them a bunch of hypocrites.

No, actually, it doesn't. Not unless those pro-gay atheists are also necessarily committed to opposing deceit. See, "hypocrisy" means acting in ways that are specifically contrary to what you claim to believe or support.

I don't conform to religion so what makes you think I will conform to pro gays???

It's silly for anyone to make a blanket statement about two distinct groups of people. It seems like for you, Charlie, it's either all people who are homophobes are disgusted or not.

Instead, it makes a whole heck of a lot more sense to say that there are some who have a fear of homosexuality, and others who are disgusted by it. You're trying to cram both of those into one word that already has a precise definition.

"The eligibility requirements for blood donation "i could find make no mention of sexual orientation at all. Examples: http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requirementshttp://www.cbccts.org/donating/index.htmhttp://www.donatingplasma.org/whydonate/eligiblity.aspx"

I can do even better than that.

Men who have sex with men are not allowed to donate. It's standard precedure for all plasma centers.

Hume's ought from is distinction. Enough said. EVEN IF there were some kind of evolutionary disgust towards homosexuality, that simply is the way things ARE and not the way they OUGHT to be. For example, just because we have an evolutionary urge to procreate does not mean that we should go fuck everything with two legs. There's still an "ought" to be present there.

And if there were an evolutionary IS statement about disgust for homosexuality, how is it that so many people missed that disgust?

Evolutionary Developments never justify anything. ALL they can do is serve as the basis for some kind of justification.

But, let's say for a second that we can get morality from evolutionary IS. It doesn't work out too well for you, I think. For example, it seems to me that most of humanity places some kind of value on the respect of persons, or at least desires the respect of persons. Rousseau called it our Second-Order Desires. This would mean that even if we have an evolutionary disgust towards homosexuality, we have another evolutionary urge to respect them as a person capable of making their own choices.

Odd how that works out, isn't it?

Evolutionary is-statements are never moral ought-statements when left alone.

What Charlie does not understand is that the meaning of words change over time and take on extra meanings. A great example is the word 'gay'; it used to be mean merry and carefree. Today it also means a homosexual man. It is slowly gaining another meaning of "absurd", as in, "That movie was so gay." (Also this meaning tends to tick some people off). So, this just means that Marriage 'used' to mean a union between a man and a woman, but now it also means between any two people.

Either way though, I think that the Schmarriage was a great word and we should start using that ;)

Assuming that the rate of STI's is higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals, of the top of my head, I can think of a possible causal reason for this.

Not all people wear condoms to reduce the risk of STI's, the risk of unwanted pregnancy is also a factor. As pregnancy via gay sex is impossible, this may lead to a decrease in the usage of condoms and thereby a higher risk of homosexuals contracting an STI.

This isn't an intrinsic fault in homosexuals, Charlie, it may have more to do with a lack of proper sexual education.

By the way, if your disgust is about "disease avoidance", then you have nothing to fear from gays with STI's, as they won't be having sex with you anyway.

"Gay men are a TRUE disease threat so our evolutionary disgust is justified"

Why "evolutionary disgust"? Who says that having a portion of homosexuals in our population isn't evolutionarily beneficial?

"It seems that you're really placing too much weight on language, and not what's behind the language"

The entire gay movement uses a word that CLEARLY misleads people into thinking the word "homophobia" is a "phobia" and manages to use the definition "irrational fear" WITHOUT ONE STUDY to support their DECEIT... I'm not putting enough weight on language. The gay movement are CONTORTIONISTS.

"as Martin pointed out, there might actually be people who are afraid of homosexuality for a number of reasons" Those people might be homophobes"

Where are the studies Mr atheist? So far, it's all hearsay. That's what Christians do.

"There might also be people who are disgusted at homosexuality"

More than one study shows it's a FACT that people are disgusted by gays. Disgust is not "prejudice".

Charlie: if marriage changes and there's nothing wrong with that, the few states that legalized gay marriage can change back to husband and wife. So change can be good.

It's all subjective and no one is right or wrong regarding gay marriage. It just depends on what each society decides to do.

There's no right or wrong, but changing back to "husband and wife" would be good? Boy, for someone with such a mad-on about word definitions, you seem to have a lot of trouble with them.

You realize, Chuck, that no one has changed marriage away from "husband and wife," right? Even the states with marriage equality still allow straights to get married. It's not like it's one or the other, or like there's only so many marriage licenses they can give out each year.

You're like a Christian asking a bunch of questions based on a lack of rational thought.

You're like a Christian dodging questions and making unsupported assertions.

What study shows 2o% of people who hang out in large crowds every two weeks are at risk of contracting a disease?

Every year, between 5 and 20% of people get influenza. That means, during flu season, if you're in a crowd of twenty people, chances are one of them is carrying a contagious and potentially fatal disease. And that's just one of the thousands of communicable diseases that are out there (quick citation).

Std's among gays are so serious, men who have sex with men aren't even allowed to donate blood or plasma. Now that's what I called justified discrimination due to a serious health risk.

And that's what I call discrimination based on a practice started in the '80s and never revised. But this isn't a citation, Charlie, and has nothing to do with data. It has to do with regulations, which may or may not be reasonable and evidence-based.

STudy shows 20% of gay men in large cities have hiv/aids.

Please provide a link to this study. And, for that matter, why it's relevant. Large cities tend to attract larger proportions of gays (and minorities of other types as well); large cities also tend to have better medical facilities. You may be getting correlation and causation backwards here; HIV-positive folks may flock to cities because A) they have the medical support they need and B) they are likelier to have HIV-positive communities for support and to prevent outside transmission.

Not that it supports your thesis, of course. If your argument is that disgust is an adaptive trait based on disease avoidance, then HIV is too new to account for anti-gay bigotry.

Gay men are a TRUE disease threat so our evolutionary disgust is justified.

You have not demonstrated that gay men are a greater disease threat than other groups (incidentally, black men are the next largest group of HIV-positive people. Is racism also evolutionarily justified?).You have not demonstrated that anti-gay bigotry has any heritable component.You have not demonstrated that anti-gay bigotry is the result of specific adaptive traits rather than a side-effect or spandrel.You have not demonstrated why homosexuality would induce these feelings of disgust when other disease-transmitting activities (heterosexual intercourse, being in crowds, eating bushmeat, etc.) do not induce those feelings.You have not provided any citations to support any of your claims.

Charlie, after that response, I'm convinced that you simply don't understand language at all.

Either that, or you've got the worst case of selective reading possible.

Regardless...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886901001179

"Findings suggest that homophobia is related to heightened levels of masculinity and may develop in men who feel threatened by individuals whom they perceive to have feminine characteristics (e.g. women, gay men)."

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm

"Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. "

---

It seems as if the homophobic reaction is quite a complex one. It might be part disgust, part repressed homosexuality, part anxiety, partly feeling threatened.

To say it's all disgust is exactly what I was worried about in your supposed study in the first place: it's a blanket statement that you assume covers all homophobia. However, that's not the case.

"Marriage" is an important and loaded word though. If I MARRY an American, I automatically qualify for a Green card; if I enter into a CIVIL PARTNERSHIP with an American, I don't. IOW, "marriage" is a LEGAL definition, Charlie's word games notwithstanding.

LIKE calling someone "black" because the word "black" has more than one meaning while the word "phobia' is SPECIFICALLY about an irrational fear.

Black is "specifically" the absence of color. It is "specifically" not-brown in the same way that phobia is not-hate. Except (as I mentioned in the other thread) we use "-phobia" to mean things other than "irrational fear" in other contexts as well. In biochemistry, certain molecules are described as "hydrophobic" based on their interactions with water (or more specifically, their lack of such interactions). Molecules, lacking minds, are incapable of fear, rational or otherwise.

In other words, language isn't as rigid as you want it to be, Charlie. You're wrong. Get over it.

You like using the term homophobe because you believe it's a good way to silence or shame people who speak out against gays into silence or politial submission.

I use "homophobia" because there isn't a better word to describe anti-gay bigotry. It's the word that our culture has developed to describe that phenomenon, for better or worse.

But again, I don't need to use the word homophobe for you, Charlie. "Bigot" is just fine with me. Ignorant bigot is even better, if a little redundant.

Pro gay atheists support the gay movement and the gay movement supports and promotes deceit so therefore, anyone who supports the gay movement supports deceit.

Which doesn't make them a hypocrite, again, unless they specifically oppose deceit. You have a real problem with reading comprehension, Charlie.

Pro gay atheists are being deceitful and trying to deceive the masses but they're against religion partly because of deceit.

Ah, now here we come to it. Except that deceit is defined as "The action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth," and nothing about pro-gay atheists is misrepresenting or concealing the truth, from their perspective. You can bitch and moan about the word "homophobe," Charlie, but would you be any less angry if every time a pro-gay atheist used "homophobe"--the culturally recognized term for anti-gay bigotry--they instead used "anti-gay bigot"?

Pro gay atheists and pro gays try to punish certain people by falsely labeling them homophobes and bigots... Conformity is when a person agrees to avoid punishment.

I'd say you're being truly labeled a bigot, that is, "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance," Charlie.

More than one study shows it's a FACT that people are disgusted by gays. Disgust is not "prejudice".

You're right. Prejudice would be "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason," while disgust is "a strong distaste; nausea; loathing." Totally different.

And besides, you haven't answered my big point, which should really turn you on your head.

So what if we have an evolutionary disgust, how do you derive a moral-ought out of that is statement?

As I said, we also have an evolutionary drive to procreate, yet we all agree that it's wrong to go around raping women. So, something happened between the "is" (the drive to procreate) and the "ought" (thinking it's wrong not to rape women) that made the "is" inferior to the "ought."

"Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men Questions and AnswersWhat is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men (MSM)?

Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.

The policy is not unique to the United States. Many European countries have recently reexamined both the science and ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral, and have retained it (See the transcript of the "FDA Workshop on Behavior-Based Donor Deferrals in the NAT Era" for further information.). This decision is also consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the European Union Directive 2004/33/EC article 2.1 on donor deferrals"

Ugh... I'm sick of the whole definition argument. Claiming that definitions don't change or that words can be put "under attack" is akin to saying that language has never evolved in all of human history -- that the people living 10,000 years ago spoke exactly the same language with exactly the same phrases that we speak today.

You don't even need to look a few decades to see new words pop up, old words fade out, and existing words change definitions. Look more than a few decades -- out to a few hundred years, and you'll see even more dramatic changes. Go back a little more than 500 years to pre-Shakespearean England and they're not even speaking "Modern English" anymore. You wouldn't be able to understand that. Go back a few more centuries to before the Black Death and the Great Vowel Shift and you'll discover the pronunciation of English is not even the same, and you wouldn't be able to pick out more than one or two familiar words (yet differently pronounced)!

Words mean what they mean now, regardless of their original intent. For all of it's history, English has been borrowing and warping words from other languages, and today it is one of the most versatile languages on Earth. More than 50% of the words we use today are not technically "English" as they come from Latin and Greek roots via French. North American "English" contains hundreds of words of Native American origin. Every word we use today has changed from its original meaning, spelling, and pronunciation. The argument to a word's past definition is so utterly meaningless, and it betrays a complete lack of thought on the part of the person making the argument. Not even one full minute's worth of brain activity should make it patently obvious that languages change, and if you haven't taken the time to invest that much thought into your argument, then your argument is not worth making.

"Hume's ought from is distinction. Enough said. EVEN IF there were some kind of evolutionary disgust towards homosexuality, that simply is the way things ARE and not the way they OUGHT to be"

So you want to throw our evolutionary behavior immune system out of the window???

That's not a good idea considering the fact that a million years of evolution has been through a lot more than we can ever match. We should never IGNORE a behavior immune system...That's silly

Also, consider this.

"Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men Questions and AnswersWhat is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men (MSM)?

Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.

The policy is not unique to the United States. Many European countries have recently reexamined both the science and ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral, and have retained it (See the transcript of the "FDA Workshop on Behavior-Based Donor Deferrals in the NAT Era" for further information.). This decision is also consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the European Union Directive 2004/33/EC article

On the other hand, not one study shows homosexuals serve some sort of evolutionary benefit.

You really know nothing about evolution.

Readup, dumbass. Homosexual behavior is found all across the animal kingdom, and is known to be an adaptive trait in various instances (another example are the lizards who are all female and reproduce through parthenogenesis, but need to engage in homosexual conduct to stimulate the process) and not an adaptive (but also not a maladaptive) trait in other instances.

Not every trait confers an evolutionary benefit or has an evolutionary explanation. And even if it did, as blindmansleeps pointed out, deriving "right" or "wrong" from them would be committing the is-ought fallacy.

So, we have an evolutionary disgust based on a disease that only became prevalent with Gay men as of 1977? Is this the creationist time-frame of evolutionary disgust?

You do understand Gay people existed prior to AIDS/HIV right?

People were disgusted to see interracial couples kissing on television and probably still do. So what's the point? Are racists really just afraid of contracting sickle cell anemia or a scorching case of the 'blacks'!? I mean that's the same sort of argument you're making.

This is all an exercise in trying to rationalize your bigotry. The more sources you cite, the more you hamstring your argument.

"So you want to throw our evolutionary behavior immune system out of the window???

That's not a good idea considering the fact that a million years of evolution has been through a lot more than we can ever match. We should never IGNORE a behavior immune system...That's silly"

Have you ever used a condom, Charlie? You're throwing evolutionary drives out of the window!

We consider it immoral to commit rape. I guess you're okay with rape, too?

And seeing how evolution requires procreation, I assume that you're fully aware that you're now morally required to father as many children as your poor groin can push out with as many women as possible. Yes. That's right. Morally required.

And, in the medical world, vaccinations are just about the most unnatural slap in the face to evolution we could issue. So, stop vaccinations!

Just letting you know some things you're going to have to commit to in order to be consistent.

charlie, you're a bigot. if you want the proper definition of that just search it in a dictionary. Martin is way to intelligent to waste his time arguing with a bigot about a topic that has little relevance to the show. I want to see the host and co host destroy some christian's ideas, not get a vocabulary lesson!

"I said gay men elicit disgust an disgust is a disease avoidance behavior. So homophobia is a disease avoidance behavior."

There is another little flaw in your syllogism here.

Well, homophobia isn't a disease. And disgust is used in many ways conversationally than "disease avoidance behavior." For example, I can say that the Yankees disgust me. Yet, the Yankees aren't a disease that I'm trying to avoid. That might not be a literal use of the word, but it's common nonetheless.

You're taking the common use of the word and mistaking it for the literal.

But, I'm pretty sure that homosexuality isn't a disease. I mean, I've never heard of anyone catching homosexuality. And if they were to say something as silly as that, I'd probably just assume that they were *AFRAID* of homosexuality.

If you want to use supposed evolutionary drives as a justification for your views, well heck, all we're supposed to do as far as evolution is concerned is live long enough to pass on our genes through reproduction, and then die to make way for the next generation. So you could say that if you live long enough to become a grandparent, you're denying your evolutionary drive.

There are any number of ways we've done an end run around evolution. The whole of modern medicine, which seeks to cure every disease imaginable, is devoted to it.

Using evolution to justify what is nothing more than routine anti-gay prejudice is really just the naturalistic fallacy all over again. And as Tom Foss has pointed out, homosexual behavior is not unique to homo sapiens. So it's an ignorant position at best.

Yes it's true, heterosexuals find gay sex distasteful or even disgusting. That's part of being heterosexual. Expanding that distaste for the act (which no heterosexual is in any way obligated to take part in) into some elaborate series of justifications for treating an entire group of people as undeserving of the same rights as the mainstream is accurately termed bigotry. (I know you said on the show that you're happy for gays to have all the same rights as married straights as long as they don't call their union a "marriage." But why you think calling something by a different name makes it something else is still a mystery to us.)

Charlie, Please point us to the, "more than one study", Facts of the disgust for gays?

The following is taken from a very nice assay about the Topic "Homophobia" (http://www.bidstrup.com/phobia.htm)

It's disgusting! Has the person who says that ever watched sausage being made?

There are many things that go on in society that we would consider disgusting, but we don't outlaw them just because of that. In fact, many of these activities are quite essential to the functioning of a modern society, but we simply turn our minds to other matters and don't concern ourselves with them.

Heterosexuals need to remember that they themselves are 'disgusting' to many homosexuals; it will come as quite a surprise for them to discover that the feeling is mutual. Yet it would be ludicrous for the gay person to suggest that heterosexuality ought to be persecuted; why shouldn't it work just as well the other way around? Isn't respect and tolerance a two way street?

And frankly (pun intended) you disgust me, but I can live with that, can you?

"So, we have an evolutionary disgust based on a disease that only became prevalent with Gay men as of 1977? Is this the creationist time-frame of evolutionary disgust?"

Are you ready to feel like an irrational Christian?

Guess what? disgust of gay men existed before religion and disgust is a disease avoidance behavior. So therefore, disgust of gay men is a clear indication that gay men have always been a disease threat. Disgust is like a window to the past. It tells us what's bad for us.

Before you use the race card, not one study shows racism is rooted in disgust Mr "atheist"

You pro ghay athests are just like Christians. There's so much you don't understand.

"People were disgusted to see interracial couples kissing on television and probably still do"

Are you ready to feel like a dumb ass Christian AGAIN?

Not one study shows racism is rooted in disgust. Not one study shows interacial couples elicit disgust. Disgust of gay men is UNIVERSAL. Even the few societies that accepted homosexuality at one time ended up turning completely against it.

You're just like those dumb Christians. You think you have a point but then you end up feeling dumb.

"Not one study shows racism is rooted in disgust. Not one study shows interacial couples elicit disgust. Disgust of gay men is UNIVERSAL. Even the few societies that accepted homosexuality at one time ended up turning completely against it."

Charlie, the petulant replies are just making you sound more and more desperate. If people who point out the myriad failings in your arguments are "just like Christians," then seriously, you've run out of ammo long ago even though you keep squeezing those triggers.

Protip: You need to quit talking about "studies" without citing them.

Again, racists consider interracial sex disgusting. Does this mean that people of different races pose a "disease threat" to one another? Or does it just mean that racists are stupid?

Again, I'm disgusted by brussel sprouts. So does this mean they pose a "disease threat" to me? Or do I just not care for the taste?

See, here's what you aren't considering: that disgust can be rooted in ignorance, stupidity, or a simple case of "different strokes," as much as any kind of legitimate "threat".

"Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. "

Charlie, I made not claims about any studies. You did however make that claim. All I ask was you back that claim up.

Oh, by the way do a Google Search on; "disgust of heterosexuals by homosexuals". Note you'll get about 5 million hits, the top ten being very to the point. Their not studies of course there opinions as was stated in my previous post.

Charlie, how was it flawed? The study makes the results rather clear, and even provides alternative explanations of the results. It makes no sweeping claims about the nature of the result - indeed, it makes barely any claims about the result at all.

The part you seem to disagree with is a summary of a theory that would explain the response they observed, but that isn't even really important in that study at all.

"See, here's what you aren't considering: that disgust can be rooted in ignorance,"

but being the fact that studies show homophobia is rooted in disgust and gay men are in fact a disease threat, the disgust of gays is in fact a disease avoidance behavior. (http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm)

Okay, Charlie, new rule. One more bullshit crack telling the people who are arguing with you that they're "just like dumb ass Christians," and I'm going to disemvowel your stupid ass. You are no longer arguing or even trying to defend your position like an adult. Wailing about what you think "studies" do or don't show, without links or citations for backup, is not an argument. Comparing your opponents here to Christians is especially egregious and stupid, since it's obvious to everyone here who isn't out of his goddamn mind (that is, everyone but you) that your anti-gay ravings are far more in line with Christian attitudes than ours and you damn well know it.

Frankly, you lost any kind of argument you could have hoped to make a while ago, and you're just flailing around trying to save the scraps of your ego at this point. But you'll get a chance to redeem yourself. Don't say I never gave you nothin'.

Having read the FDA page, what I saw was that the ban on blood donations was indeed based on the potential risk of infection, but there is no discussion on the page of "disgust." Indeed, no passage anywhere on the page makes a moral value judgment about homosexual relationships. It merely points that that the risk of infection is statistically higher among men who have sex with men.

"Guess what? disgust of gay men existed before religion and disgust is a disease avoidance behavior."

People have been disgusted by interracial and even intertribal or interethnic couplings "before religion" and by your argument that same disgust is "disease avoidance behavior." care to explain that? You know what don't bother because much like the rest of what you've said, you really haven't thought it out.

Homosexuality and Bisexuality have been prevalent in many cultures of antiquity.. where none-such disgust for the act existed.. it wasn't considered even deviant behavior. Where did the evolutionary disgust go? Maybe.. it was.. *gasp* a societal thing.

"So therefore, disgust of gay men is a clear indication that gay men have always been a disease threat"

You're willing to grant your disgust as an indicator for Gay (male) sex as some sort of evolutionary queue. My are you trusting of your instincts.. it's almost like... wait for it.. faith. Since your whole argument pretty much hinges on AIDS/HIV your point is foolish. Unless of course we are hardwired to be afraid of having a good sense of decor.

Not to mention you're willing to discount other 'disgust' or even 'pleasure' sensations as evolutionarily unfounded which means.. *giggle* you're cherry picking! Hmmm it's almost like.. No I won't go there. (Sorry Martin)

You're also making plenty of equivocation fallacies with the word 'disgust' anyway. A racists' use of disgust at seeing an interracial couple kissing and your definition of disgust toward a gay couple kissing is indistinguishable as much as you'd like the contrary.

Homosexual behavior is found all across the animal kingdom. Your knowledge about evolution is an indictment of our educational system...

you're really starting to look like you're sautering into the troll category with all the ad hominems and talks about 'conforming' as if equality is some kind of shadow agenda.

I would really like to continue, but there's paint drying somewhere I'm sure. *yawn*

just taking your offensive analogy to its logical conclusion... are you disgusted by flu victims. did the flu victims do anything that merits your disgust, or are you simply making a special pleading argument?

It seems apparent that Charlie is a bit of a troll who employs a bait-and-switch tactic to generate controversy thereby getting his kicks and everyone elses goat. It wouldn't make any difference what the subject matter was. He could claim the sky is red and not blue just to be contrary to see if he could get a rise from the person unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of his poke. A troll and nothing more I think.

ahh but are disgusted by the existence of flu victims. you seem to be disgusted by the existence of gay people even though there is an extremely minute chance that you will catch a disease from them. (far more chance at catching the flu) (just to say I don't buy your premises, but since you are putting this up and I'm extremely bored, I'm going on your premise)

Thinking of my parents having sex disgusts me. I don't really want to know about most peoples' fetishes either. I'm also disgusted by bigots having sex come to think of it. I think bigots should have the same rights allowed to non-bigots in their states... but I think marriages between them should be called scarriages. I mean they can have all the same privileges of marriages, but people like Charlie can only have "scarriages" because thinking of them procreating and spreading whatever genes makes them bigoted disgusts me.

@MartinBrussels sprouts protip! Try making a cut in the bottom, and put a couple of teaspoons of sugar in the water with them. It takes the bitterness away ;)

@CharlieIsn't past your bedtime already?

By the way, if disease aversion is your main reason for being homophobic, why aren't you racist? There's a huge HIV epidemic in Africa right now, so those darkies must be viewed with disgust and avoided, amirite?

"if marriage changes and there's nothing wrong with that, the few states that legalized gay marriage can change back to husband and wife. So change can be good."

Oh, so this change is good? But if states that didn't legalize gay marriage legalize it (and change their definition of marriage) that's somehow bad?

Why? Oh, wait, I know why. Because you're a bigot.

Change CAN be good, you say. So it's mostly bad then? Progress. Equality. You'd desperately cling to your preferred cherrypicked definition of marriage or homophobia just so you can justify your bigotry.

Actually in my small home nation (the principality of Liechtenstein) there is just an election going on to allow same sex couples to marry. I voted Yes of course, though it might currently only affect 10 couples or so (our nations population is around 36'000).Let's hope that despite consisting of 80% catholics and there being quite some noisy right wing nuts (we have a small closeted nazi segment) we get to pass the law. The buzz around it seems to be going in the right direction and the government supports a "Yes" as well.

-England/United Kingdom - visited or lived in from 1980 to 1999-Western Europe - visited or lived in since 1980-Born in, lived in or had sex with anyone who lived in, or received Blood products in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger or Nigeria since 1977 -people who have spent a cumulative three months in Great Britain or those who have spent six months in any part of Europe since 1980

If you fall in any of these categories you are deferred indefinitely from giving blood just like men who have sex with men. You have stated that homosexuals are a "disease threat" and being disgusted by them is "justified" because of this. If your opinion is not about bigotry but rooted in facts as you claim surely you would have no problem saying you are disgusted by africans and europeans as they are also a disease threats.

This underlines what happens when an atheist takes on a strictly theistic conclusion. Without being able to quote the bible the arguments are insubstantial word play. Learn from Julia Gillard, an atheist who is against gay marriage but has avoided answering any questions on the subject. Because, she knows a secular argument against gay marriage will just make her look stupid.

Charlie, My name is Jonas.I have never(as far as I can recall anyway)been disgusted by gays, admittedly I was a bit weirded out when I learned about them in sex ed, and I am a heterosexual, am I abnormal?

All they're asking for is equality and Charlie would stand in the way of this progress by clinging to a tradition of bigotry, just like the pro-slavery, pro-segregation and anti-woman's rights following had done for ages, and when we cite those occassions it's suddenly nothing like what he is proposing!

Ironically, the word 'gay' itself has undergone quite a transformation in language and definitions, just over the last century. These changes are much more than the change required to go from marriage as straight-only to one that includes gays. And as another poster pointed out, the meaning of 'marriage' has already changed throughout history, with some current dictionary definitions already including gays. I wonder if Charlie, apparently being a black man himself, would like to have this debate with that southern preacher who refused to marry the inter-racial couple because it is not what the word 'marriage' used to mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay#Overview

Charlie's argument is silly, boring, and has little to do with atheism. Please do not entertain this argument from him on the show ever again.

I find Charlie, boring. As for his definition of Homophobia, I bet hes not disgusted by Lesbians.If you are disgusted by Lesbians, Charlie then your definition stands.But i think all Heterosexual men will find that answer very telling. I found the Fine tuning argument more interesting its lame but interesting.I would say that observation of the Universe would suggest that Humanity as a species was fine tuned by Evolution to live on this planet in this universe.I would be prepared to say that the Universe is God.Is the Universe self aware? I have no way of knowing.But no reason to think so.Erm does that make me a theist?

"Considering that we are considered part of the universe then yes, the universe is self-aware."

That's very close to committing a Composition Fallacy.

Don't presuppose mankind exists because it was meant to. There's no reason to think that; it's merely human-bias and arrogance and sollipsism and the desire to feel special. The universe doesn't end or begin with humanity. We're just there.

Humanity adapted to Earth via evolution. Earth, not the Universe, mind. Big difference. Humans would die instantly when exposed to the vacuum of outer space!

Tondeb got there first: what about lesbians? You won't find anything barring them from giving blood, because lesbian sex is generally pretty safe. Heterosexual sex is a better transmission vector. So why aren't all women disgusted by the thought of disease-ridden heterosexual contact?

I'm going to look at your citations, Charlie, but here's the irrational leap you're almost certainly making: even if disgust is a mechanism developed for disease-avoidance, it does not follow that every instance of disgust is always reliably a disease-avoidance reaction.

It would be nice if we had a natural mechanism for reliably avoiding disease, but if it existed, we'd expect history to have gone quite differently. Why is it that, for the whole of human history, people weren't disgusted by not washing their hands or medical implements? Why is it that we had to discover independently that those activities lowered the rate of disease transmission before we became disgusted by the guy who passes the sink on the way out of the bathroom? Why is it that, for most of the history of the western world, we happily tossed pots of urine and feces into the street? Why is it that everyone living from the Renaissance up to the reinvention of indoor plumbing wasn't in a perpetual state of disease-avoiding disgust? Why would those behaviors, responsible for most classical ilness, fly under our disease-avoidance radar, but gay men--who only present an increased risk if you fuck them--would trigger it? Score another sloppy point for evolution.

Or does the disgust kick in only after we've independently discovered that the behavior or group is a disease risk? In which case, disgust isn't necessarily a disease-avoidance reaction, but a reaction to the perception of a disease risk. In which case disgust like yours is easily more a matter of misunderstanding, misinformation, prejudice, and innumeracy, than actual disease-aversion.

Again, Tom, you've put your finger on the nub of why Charlie's "disease avoidance" argument fails so epically: straight people aren't avoiding gay sex, even if they are disgusted by the thought of it, because they're afraid of disease. They're avoiding gay sex because they're not gay.

And anyway, you're right that people don't instinctively avoid potential disease threats either. Cleanliness and sanitation are comparatively recent phenomena in Western civilization. We literally cannot conceive of how filthy pre-modern cities were. And through most of Christian medieval Europe, people hardly ever bathed at all, partly because of church warnings about the evils of their own naked bodies, and partly due to ignorant ideas that bathing left open pores which increased the likelihood of sickness.

So any argument that it's somehow natural and intuitive for people to avoid disease causing things, and thus homophobia is part of our self-preserving nature, shows a total ignorance of history, to say the very least.

"Charlie, but here's the irrational leap you're almost certainly making: even if disgust is a mechanism developed for disease-avoidance, it does not follow that every instance of disgust is always reliably a disease-avoidance reaction"

but gay men elicit UNIVERSAL DISGUST. People in EVERY culture of EVERY society have found gay men disgusting. Even the few societies that accepted homosexuality ended up turning completelly against it.

It makes perfect sense because as science catches up with our disgust, we're beginning to understand why our disease avoidance behavior is causes us to frown up on gay men. Men who have sex with men can't even donate blood. Think about it. Gay men are in fact the undisputed champs of std's.

No, gay men do not elicit universal disgust - they disgust you. Please do not speak on behalf of the civilised community in which you live in a feeble attempt to convince us that we all think like you but are somehow in denial.

"Any person who can't tolerate my disgust of gays and my position on gay marriage is in fact a bigot." I am quoting this again just to underline the self-righteous stupidity of this particular caller.

Two points:1) Marrige was not always clearly defined as one man one woman. Throughout history you had all sorts of versions of marrige including marrige with animals and even today: Marrige with multiple women.2) Most importantly: WHAT DOES IT MATTER?! If a gay couple loves each other and want to get married I am more than happy to let them do it. How pathetic do you have to be to significantly impede the life of others just so your skewed up view of the definition of one word is upheld?Do us all a favour and kill yourself horribly.

Studies and history shows there's a common disgust of gay men that is among every culture of every society. Even many people who support gay marriage are disgusted by them. Even the societies that embraced homosexuality ended up turning completely against it.

"Studies and history shows there's a common disgust of gay men that is among every culture of every society"

Please cite your sources. Which societies that "embraced" homosexuality turned completely against it? Furthermore, how would that matter in any way? Even if every society prior to our own had been as bigoted as you regarding homosexuality, how does that make it somehow the correct attitude?

A friend of mine, Michael Jones, would like me to pass the following along:

"Charlie, disgust is as much a conditioned response as a disease avoidance behaviour, and as much a response to individual foibles of gustatory aesthetics as to conditioning or to the presence of disease. Your attempt to explain away your disgust at gay sexuality is a transparent piece of sophistry; you try to disguise a prejudice by claiming that it is a response to threat in the absence of any evidence that a threat exists. Your sense of being threatened by gay people exists only in your mind; you are in fact irrationally afraid of gay people. In other words, you are homophobic according to the strict meaning of the term. Your aggressive nit-picking over so trivial an issue as the elasticity of the term in common usage, and your unspecified but obvious and dubious assumption that irrational fear of gay people has no correlation with irrational hatred of gay people and the commission of acts of violence against them, and that the term 'homophobia' is therefore an inappropriate descriptor for the motivation for gay-bashing, is irrelevant to the issue of anti-gay violence at best, and at worst covertly supports anti-gay sentiments."

"Martin: In debate involving the meaning of terms, insist on agreement as to which dictionary will be used as the source of the meaning of all terms referred to as part of the ground rules, before the debate begins - I suggest the Oxford English Dictionary. Personally, I have little time to waste on people who spend all their time attacking the people they claim to support and share views with over hair-splitting details, particularly when they distract from and/or trivialise the issues of a serious debate. 'Homophobic' or anti-gay violence is an ugly fact; it needs to be addressed. The strict details of the dictionary definition of the words 'marriage' and 'homophobia', and the question of whether these terms can be, or have been used in what can be called 'deceptive' fashion,are fripperies by comparison. If Charlie wants to be the conscience of atheism, let him stick with his own atheism and allow the rest of us to do the same."

1. The gay movement supports the use of the term homophobia KNOWING it's a complete misnomer, deceitful by default and is not even a phobia. Even after the gay movement realized homophobia is rooted in disgust and not fear, they still continued to purposely use it incorrectly...Being the fact that it's such a misnomer,they shouldn't be using it at all

2. The gay movement CONSTANLTY spew a false dillemma fallacy by claiming gay marriage is a "rights" issue when many people oppose gay marriage but support gays having full equal rights.

3. The gay movement CONSTANTLY spew faulty analogy fallacies and appeal to emotions by comparing gays to the black race. Many pro gays even attempted to put words in Martin Luther King's mouth without a shred of tangible evidence that MLK would have supported gay marriage.

1. You're getting hung up on semantics. The point about it being a phobia versus disgust has already been dealt with, so I won't linger on that. Secondly, you keep talking about purpose - why would using the term "homophobia" instead of "disgust" make the slightest bit of difference? Cui bono?

2. How is being denied marriage not a rights issue!? If you are being denied the right to marry, you are e priori being denied a right.

3. What words have been put in MLK's mouth? Moreover, what is the difference between equal rights for homosexuals and equal rights for all races?

Homophobia is alive and well in ancient greece..That's the same place where homosexuality was accepted at one time..

The question is, what happened??? Like always, people turn to religion to explain the unexplained. So something happened that caused people to run to religion for comfort. Religious people show a pattern of running to religion when something goes WRONG.

"The point about it being a phobia versus disgust has already been dealt with"

No it hasn't..It's not over. STUDIES show disgust is a disease avoidance behavior. Disgust of gay men is a perfect example being the fact that homophobia is worldwide. LIke Christians, many pro gay atheists completely disregard studies when they're not in your favor. Shame on you.

"How is being denied marriage not a rights issue!?"

because many people who oppose gay marriage support gays having full equal rights

"What words have been put in MLK's mouth?"

Many pro gays claimed MLK would have stood for gay marriage

"Moreover, what is the difference between equal rights for homosexuals and equal rights for all races?"

There is no difference. There is however, differences is identities.

There's also no difference between polygamists rights, incest rights and gay rights.

"The gay movement supports the use of the term homophobia KNOWING it's a complete misnomer"

Well, no, Charlie; you've repeatedly (and repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly) purported it to mean something other than what it is commonly understood to mean; that's not the same thing. It may please you to insist the word "orange" actually applies to a colour commonly referred to as "blue" on the basis of what it once meant to fishermen in the 12th century, but that's hardly binding on the rest of us. They know what they mean when they use the word, and so does everyone else: this is the purpose of communication. You can stand on a street corner on a tinfoil soapbox till you need a shave, telling us we don't know what we mean when we say what we mean, but we're not obliged to agree that you're right. If you're about disgust, fine... you need to find another word for yourself, not insist a billion English-speakers agree that they're deliberately misleading the world when they use a word and as a result, turn on a dime to suit you. That's nuts.

people oppose gay marriage but support gays having full equal rights

If they refuse to recognize the right of a person to marry another person whom he/she loves, then by definition they do NOT support equal rights where homosexuals are concerned. The twee reply to this is that gays would have the same right to marry people of the opposite sex as anyone else, which is the sophistry of whitewashing it with clever wordplay and simply avoids the issue by pretending it doesn't exist. It does, and anyone who actually DOES espouse equal rights for gays accepts that. If they don't, they're claiming something they don't embrace, and that's hypocrisy, your eighth deadly sin.

"faulty analogy fallacies and appeal to emotions by comparing gays to the black race"

In what aspect is it false? Do they claim to have endured 500 years of slavery? Not to my knowledge. No, they claim that, like blacks once were, they are prohibited from the enjoyment of certain rights taken for granted by others, but denied to them in their own particulars. This appears to me to be entirely above board and an apt use of analogy, one aimed at opening the eyes of others who have understood the wrongs done to one group and may begin to understand the sensibilities of another.

"Homophobia is alive and well in ancient greece..That's the same place where homosexuality was accepted at one time..

The question is, what happened??? Like always, people turn to religion to explain the unexplained. So something happened that caused people to run to religion for comfort. Religious people show a pattern of running to religion when something goes WRONG"

Wow. Just wow. You've sort of got it bang-on, but completely the wrong way around, if that makes sense. For the sake of argument I'm going to respond assuming your premises are correct. You seem to be implying that the Ancient Greeks turned to religion to cope with homosexuality, completely ignoring that the Ancient Greeks already had their own polytheistic religion in which homosexual activity was accepted. Furthermore, if by "religion", you mean "Christianity" (Greek Orthodox being prominent over there), you're dead right. This was not a reaction to homosexuality though, but the reverse. People became more homophobic as the Christian message of anti-homosexuality was being preached more and more. So whereas you once had a society that was tolerant of homosexuality, it was the religion that turned them against it, not vice versa.

Re our other thread, when I said "dealt with", I meant "discussed on this forum".

"Full equal rights" includes marriage, so you're making no sense there.

I'm happy to let people speculate as to whether MLK would have supported gay marriage, when in truth it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference. So what if he didn't?

Look, studies are a fantastic thing. But, we're still dealing with an is-ought problem. Studies cannot give us ought judgements; they only show what IS.

the entire gay marriage fight is based on "ought" judgements. Gays say "we ought to get marriage"

The flawed study (univ of Georgia) is obvioiusly flawed. All you have to do is count the number of subjects. That alone makes it unreliable. NOt to mention it was never duplicated even once. It was also contradicted

The term you're looking for for your marriage/shmarriage divide is "Separate but equal". I'm going to take a inductive leap and presume you understand the arguments against that.

It's a matter of identity. A=A, B=B if A=C and B=C than A=B.

The only reason to remove gays from marriage is to create an elite institution so as to oppress them in some way.

By all practical elements two committed gay people are as married as two straight.

Charlie, let's imagine for a moment the absurd notion that you actually have gay friends. Say you'[re invited to a wedding where they solidify their commitment. Are you going to insist to them they cannot call it marriage?

"Homophobia is alive and well in ancient greece..That's the same place where homosexuality was accepted at one time..

The question is, what happened??? Like always, people turn to religion to explain the unexplained. So something happened that caused people to run to religion for comfort. Religious people show a pattern of running to religion when something goes WRONG."

Christianity went wrong, you fuckwit.

"AGAIN, even the FEW societies that accepted homosexuality ended up turning completely against it. NOT ONE society has ALWAYS accepted homosexuality."

Because no society is eternal No society by your regards has ALWAYS accepted monogamy or marriage. You're same argument can be made by communists

------------------------------------------------

Your own "Agnostic Theist" caller sounds like Shiloh, a troll from Pharyngula.

Wow, you guys are letting yourself be lead around by a red herring here.

So WHAT if people's anti-gay bigotry is based on disgust, instead of fear? It's a debatable point, but ultimately it's completely irrelevant to the issue of gay rights.

I personally find the image of my parents having sex rather disgusting, and I'm sure studies would support the notion that many other people do as well. I'm sure a lot of people find the image of senior citizens or morbidly obese people having sex to be disgusting. But so what?

There's no rational path from that disgust to curtailing the freedoms of those involved.

There's also no difference between polygamists rights, incest rights and gay rights.

Or the rights of people to marry between races, faiths, or Beatles fans and rose cultivators. If it's between two consenting adults, what skin is it off your nose, my nose, or anyone else's? There are lots of things in the world that I, and you, would not chose to do, even given the option and the right to do so. That doesn't equate to proposition that they should not be allowed. NASCAR -- watching overpaid nobodies in clown suits and clown cars go 'round and 'round and 'round in a circle for hours -- comes close to disgusting me, but my dad gets a kick out of it; why should I insist it be banned, if I could? I don't know whether it was Jefferson or Franklin who made the remark about my rights ending where my neighbour's nose begins, but it's a good one.

"Ancient Greeks already had their own polytheistic religion in which homosexual activity was accepted"

That's IRRELEVANT. History shows people use religion to explain negative events as they come alone. How many people claimed 911 was caused by a punishment from god??? When something goes wrong, people throw God or the devil right in the middle of it all. My point is, regardless of what was going on before they turned against homosexuality, something obvioiusly went wrong and that's when they threw god in it.

You talked before about how feces disgusts you. Does this mean that it is wrong for people to produce feces? I am fine with you being disgusted by homosexuals. I disagree with you but that is your reaction and that is fine. But how do you get from this behavior disgusts me therefore it should not exist at all.

In terms of history there are cultures that have accepted homosexuality and never turned on it. Ancient Greece never turned on homosexuals, they turned upon the philosophers, and on the people who didn't agree with their religion but never on people who were homosexuals. Then their culture died out. So your comment that there are no cultures that don't find homosexuality disgusting is unfounded.

"That's IRRELEVANT. History shows people use religion to explain negative events as they come alone. How many people claimed 911 was caused by a punishment from god??? When something goes wrong, people throw God or the devil right in the middle of it all. My point is, regardless of what was going on before they turned against homosexuality, something obvioiusly went wrong and that's when they threw god in it. "

think about it. Disgust is a disease avoidance behavior, not a phobia. "

I'll spell it out because you are a cargo cult logician

a) Disease is something that provides a real dangerb) Avoiding something that poses no danger LIKE a disease is treating something that is not dangerous as dangerousc) Such a behavior is phobic; responding to a stimuli with a disproportionate fear/avoidance response.

Seriously you're as fucking pathetic as a dog who freaks out on hardwood floors. You're panicky and emotional about a non issue and you look ridiculous doing it. The only difference is that the damn dog isn't insane enough to insist to others that the floor is dangerous.

I honestly see no difference between you and someone who is convinced that the color yellow is dangerous. It's an irrational behavior and one that your mind is desperate to justify. I don't believe most people labeled homophobes are mentally ill in some regard but your behavior makes me think that you might be. Get professional help. You have issues.

"The term you're looking for for your marriage/shmarriage divide is "Separate but equal"

THAT'S FALSE

Different identities is not separate but equal Are you claiming because I"m "african american", and you're maybe "white", we're separate but equal??

YOure IRRATIONAL.

"The only reason to remove gays from marriage is to create an elite institution so as to oppress them in some way"

How in the hell could we oppress gays if many people who oppose gay marirage will support FULL EQUAL RIGHT??? AND THAT'S INCLUDING the ATHEIST prime minsiser of australia

"By all practical elements two committed gay people are as married as two straight"

That depends on what you consider marriage. Mariage to me is husband and wife. That's the identity of marriage

"Charlie, let's imagine for a moment the absurd notion that you actually have gay friends. Say you'[re invited to a wedding where they solidify their commitment. Are you going to insist to them they cannot call it marriage?"

if it's against the law, of course. if it's not against the law, I will just watch them model after heteros because that seems to be all they want to do.

There's usually the woman playing man and the woman playing herself. That's how gays get down. haha. They model after heteros

"So your comment that there are no cultures that don't find homosexuality disgusting is unfounded."

There are extensive tomes of romantic prose and praise of homosexual love from Feudal Japan. And while Western influence and other social factors have made it less acceptable Japan is still somewhat less homophobic than the west in some regards.

Btw read Rene Girad before you insist that people society turns on during times of trouble actually deserve it. You're same argument could be made to justify pogroms. There has never been a culture that permanently tolerated Jews after all /snark

Charlie, you clearly gate gays, are ignorant of what being gay is, and want to prevent them from doing things that don't involve you at all or hurt anyone else, and you compare them to disease. Yet you call me irrational?

One of us is talking out of emotion and trying to dress it up in the lab coat of rationality...the other one is Ing

You just broke the respect code you freak of nature. Your developmenal malfunction is pathetic causing a pathetic thinking pattern. I have news for your queer ass. You're not THE NEW BLACK RACE YOU DELUSIONAL FREAK.

"I honestly see no difference between you and someone who is convinced that the color yellow is dangerous:

Okay, please stop. Everyone. Charlie made his mind up well before he called the show the first time.

Starting at 5:15 this exchange occurs:

Russell: Why should straight people get married?

Charlie: Because the word marriage has been established to be the identity of the ultimate commitment between man and woman.

Russell: Established by who?

Charlie: By the majority of the societies in the world. People around the world have already established another name for marriage which is "husband and wife".

Russell: So this is just a case of majority rules? So if a majority now decides that it's okay for-

Charlie:(cutting Russell off)Actually, actually, that is a strawman fallacy, I never claimed that. Nice try.

Now in the interest of full disclosure, I didn't quote Charlie's second statement verbatim, but that's because it was a confused, disjointed set of statements that barely made sense when listened to and would probably make even less sense if read. But the sentence that starts with "By the majority" is verbatim so I won't hear any arguments that claim I took your words out of context Charlie.

Like others have pointed out, Charlie is a rude, arrogant, and not particularly smart person. I don't mean that as a dig against Charlie, I honestly feel those traits accurately represent his character.

I wouldn't mind more deconstruction of the call for educational and entertainment purposes, but to continue having this conversation with Charlie is an excercise in futility.

"You just broke the respect code you freak of nature. Your developmenal malfunction is pathetic causing a pathetic thinking pattern. I have news for your queer ass. You're not THE NEW BLACK RACE YOU DELUSIONAL FREAK."

A) Wow you assume I'm gay because I disagree with you. How do you not know I'm not black and straight?

"I wouldn't mind more deconstruction of the call for educational and entertainment purposes, but to continue having this conversation with Charlie is an excercise in futility. "

Keeping Charlie talking is futile for him, but for me it serves the purpose of exposing his absurdity and irrationality further. As we see he unravels like a spool and when his 'reason' is challenged he falls back on the sort of volatile hate and bile I see from white supremacists and other bigots.

Semantic arguments are stupid and quite frankly not worth the time of anyone involved.

Language is a pain in the arse, a lot of words are fuzzy, there is no single source for a definition and so no one can claim an authority on the matter. Not only that but words change their meaning over time.

The best thing to do is simply explain what you mean, kind of like the way Matt D asks people what they believe and why, because labels just don't cut it.

To be honest I find it more interesting why someone would crusade for this particular argument, it really does seem like closeted homosexuality, it's fairly well known that anger and disgust towards homosexuals and their behaviour can be caused at least in part by peoples own discomfort with their own sexuality.

Ummm yeah making a comparison to show how it's like a phobia. You have a stimuli which poses no danger to you and you respond as if it does. Your panicked, emotional style of talk sounds to me like a Dog skittering and sliding across the floor in a panic.

"To be honest I find it more interesting why someone would crusade for this particular argument, it really does seem like closeted homosexuality, it's fairly well known that anger and disgust towards homosexuals and their behaviour can be caused at least in part by peoples own discomfort with their own sexuality. "

Considering how fast Charlie went to screaming faggot at me, I cannot rule that out. I can't say it is either though. Charlie has psychological issues and it may just be a irrational fear/repulsion like a crippling fear of clowns.

Oh and STUDIES show that homosexual is normal, not contagious, natural, and beyond someone's control and isn't due to a 'malfunction'. If you want to play Logic Tennis we keep the net up for both of us, we don't' take it down when you want to serve.

Charlie are you aware there is evidence for a natural and evolutionary selected for underpinning for racism? It's true. The idea is that fear/disgust of those who are different than those you raised with was a benefit to protect people from competing tribes or some such. I'm sure you'll grant the same "disgust" argument to racists as you demand for yourself.

[i]In our minds, marriage is all about man and woman. When we think of marriage, man and woman comes to mind.[/i]Thats not true. not in our minds. in your mind. in my mind marriage is about commitment and love, something that transcends gender

I think we should adopt the shmarriage label. and leave regular old marriage label to gather dust in the religious institutions. then the definition of marriage will shift to an antiquated ritual held by religious crazies

"Disgust of feces causes human to avoid feces because our brains have evolved to develop a behavior immune system

Disgust of gay men causes humans to avoid gay men because our brains hae evoled to develop a behavior immune system."

Think for a fucking second. If that was true HOW ARE THERE GAY MEN!? If gay people were dangerous those without the gay avoidance would have died off. Not everyone has that avoidance even straights. So you're full of shit.

"The blood donation policy was enforce by FDA. Go ahead and challenge them. Once the media catches on, that will only promote the fact that gay men are a health risk. So please, challenge FDA "

In Africa Black Heterosexuals are the big risk for HIV and other diseases. You want to play that card? Should white people be disgusted by blacks because of the perceived statistical likelihood of carrying disease?

If that's the case, we can change the definition of "homosexual to mean anyone with an abnomal brain structure. We'll simply broaden the definition. Are you okay with that? AFter all, it's just a label.(sarcasm)

@atheistdeceitbuster It's not simply disgust that makes you a homophobe. I'll admit that engaging in homosexual sex would be disgusting for me. I personally wouldn't do it. And I'm sure many homosexuals find heterosexual sex equally disgusting and wouldn't engage in it either. It's not the disgust itself, it's how you decide to act on it. I think you can still say "I think gay sex is nasty" and not be labeled a homophobe. It's when you say "I think gay sex is nasty, and therefore I want to stop other people from doing it, or discriminate against them" that labels you as a homophobe. It's a phobia when what other people do makes you insecure and you act to limit them.If you think homosexuals spread disease more than heterosexuals, you are simply wrong (heteros engage in anal too), and clinging to that irrational belief is a phobia.

The definition of a word comes from its use and its use is dictated by tradition. You have one view about how the word marriage is/should be used and we have a different one. We are all now at an impasse.

"If that's the case, we can change the definition of "homosexual to mean anyone with an abnomal brain structure. We'll simply broaden the definition. Are you okay with that? AFter all, it's just a label.(sarcasm) "

Because they don't HAVE an abnormal brain structure.

Jesus fucking Christ, I have a spelling abnormally, and I am driven nuts by your spelling mistakes. Are you just typing with one hand?

Here's a new evolutionary narrative for you

Homosexuality is on the same spectrum and in the same bundle of behaviors as pair bonding and social bonding. To form tight communities to survive and provide team work evolution co-opted the sex related pair bonding so it could tie the early human societies.

If you want to shift the label then fine but then homosexual people will find a new label that more accurately reflects who and what they are. Also it wouldn't be a broadening because homosexuals are not a subset of the group "People with abnormal brain structures".

@Charlie (atheistdeceitbuster)- That's a terrible argument. By that standard, no one should work in sewage systems or as septic tank drainers or even as farmers (if you're surrounded by manure). I'm not doubting that you might be disgusted by homosexuals, but how you act so anal retentive about the inclusiveness of the word marriage to exclude homosexuals you do seem homophobic whether you want to be or not.

the same is true for those who like James Blunt music. and those who have synesthesia. and those who are geniuses and those who are savants. You have a different brain structure to me, the point is that they are not significantly different to warrant being called "abnormal"

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.

This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.

Email policy

All emails sent to the program at the tv[at]atheist-community[dot]org address become the property of the ACA, and the desire for a reply is assumed. Note that this reply could take the form of a public response on the show or here on the blog. In those cases, we will never include the correspondent's address, but will include names unless we deem it inappropriate. If you absolutely do not wish for us to address your email publicly, please include a note to that effect (like "private response only" or "not for publication" or "if you post this on the blog please don't use my name") somewhere in the letter.

Google Analytics script

Subscribe To

AE and Related Sites

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.The Atheist Experience is a weekly live call-in television show sponsored by the Atheist Community of Austin. This independently-run blog (not sponsored by the ACA) features contributions from current and former hosts and co-hosts of the show.